well yes its a gambit most of the time the queen never recaptures the pawn like that
Is the queen's gambit a gambit
Sort:
maximus_dragon wrote:
well yes its a gambit most of the time the queen never recaptures the pawn like that
Most, but it can happen so I don't think they should call it a gambit
Jan 1, 2009
0
#4
Usually after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc, white usually plays 3. Nc3. That is considered better than Qa5 and it is still impossible for black to defend the pawn. I, however, enjoy playing 3. e4 if they accept, even if black can defend the pawn. But that's just me.
ok think in this..
The main in a gambit is to give up a pawn for a better position, a faster development of the pieces.. and also trying to make the game difficult for black, because now that black is winning a pawn (most of the player) looks for keep the material, but this is the intention of white in the opening.. just MAKE THE GAME DIFFICULT FOR WHITE..
And the example you show as I see, ok white is winning again the pawn.. so it would be just an exchange.. for the worst position of white, in that move you regain the pawn but also you are leaving to black to attack your queen and have a lot of free moves..
I mean that is one of the worst position for white.. yu are just giving up your position.. an maybe your game..
yeah sure i see
hchdez wrote:
ok think in this..
The main in a gambit is to give up a pawn for a better position, a faster development of the pieces.. and also trying to make the game difficult for black, because now that black is winning a pawn (most of the player) looks for keep the material, but this is the intention of white in the opening.. just MAKE THE GAME DIFFICULT FOR WHITE..
And the example you show as I see, ok white is winning again the pawn.. so it would be just an exchange.. for the worst position of white, in that move you regain the pawn but also you are leaving to black to attack your queen and have a lot of free moves..
I mean that is one of the worst position for white.. yu are just giving up your position.. an maybe your game..
lol I think this is a very big overstatement. I do think that Qa4+ bd7 Qxc4 probably leads to equality for black though, but it certaintly doesn't come anywhere near losing the game.
Thats just one variation. Its is not considered an official line in tournament play and does not even have an Eco code. Maybe if somebody wins a major tourney, then thay can call it Queens Gambit: Negated
dlordmagic wrote:
Thats just one variation. Its is not considered an official line in tournament play and does not even have an Eco code. Maybe if somebody wins a major tourney, then thay can call it Queens Gambit: Negated
lol or Queens Gambit:False Variation
Queens Gambit Accepted Dumb Variation
The queens gambit isnt really a true gambit since the pawn can be won back immediately by 3 Qa4+ if white so desires.
Reb wrote:
The queens gambit isnt really a true gambit since the pawn can be won back immediately by 3 Qa4+ if white so desires.
I knew it
SkyChess wrote:
I recommend taking the pawn back with e3 if b5 then a4. From there the worst move your opponent can make is Bd7 because of 5. axb5 Bxb5 6. Nc3 Ba6 7. Qf3 c6 8. Rxa6!! Nxa6 9. Qxc6+ Qd7 10. Qxa8 Qd8 from this position a lot of people would trade Queens but a better move would be 11. Qc6+ Qd7 12. Qxa6 and as you can see white has a decisive material advantage because black tried to hold on to the 'extra pawn'.
6 ...c6
fuck this game ..its not a gambit
1.d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 b5 makes it somewhat of a true gambit.
(After 3. e3, 3. ... b5 is very much not recommended).
dlordmagic wrote:
Thats just one variation. Its is not considered an official line in tournament play
What's that supposed to mean, "an official line in tournament play"? There's no such thing.
Anyway, the QG probably got its name because it's the queenside version of the King's Gambit, at first sight.
There are important lines in which it becomes a real gambit, for instance 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 a6 4.e3 b5.
Well is it actually a gambit because. The definition I was told was a pawn sack in the opening made to slow the opposite player's development without an immediate way of getting the material back. In the queen's gambit you can like this couldn't you except people don't do it.
How can you call it a gambit than if you can imediately get material back what do you think? It doesn't happen in the king's gambit or in the Evans gambit.